3 ms·

The TI-99/4A didn't ship with a compiler. Neither did the Atari 400 or 800, the Commodore VIC-20 & 64, or for that matter, the Apple II. Sure, the Apple came wi

The TI-99/4A didn't ship with a compiler. Neither did the Atari 400 or 800, the Commodore VIC-20 & 64, or for that matter, the Apple II. Sure, the Apple came with a BASIC interpreter, as did several of the others, but not a compiler and you could usually purchase an assembler. This isn't something we "lost," it's something we didn't have.

nosecrets 8y ago
There was a very expensive compiler for the Apple ][. Apple Pascal, based on UCSD Pascal, had its own operating system, released in 1979. I ran into it in 1983 in my very first computer class (8th grade). https://apple2history.org/history/ah17/#01 https://apple2history.org/history/ah17/#01
- walshemj 8y ago
  I recall supporting our companies scientific software on apple ]['s that used UCSD - don't suppose any on remembers "Tec Pack" I had to recompile the programs to hard code the security dongles key into it.
fit2rule 8y ago
Yes, those things did come with the means onboard by which software could be created. It wasn't a compiler, if you want to be pedantic about it, but no computer shipped in the 80's ever survived unless it had the means onboard to support development of software for it. BASIC was a very effective means by which to write software in those days... We do not have that capability with the iDevices. Nor do we really have it with workstation devices (except of course Linux). Manufacturers don't consider it important to breed a generation of users who can be developers with little more than the initial shipment of software - instead the base has been split, such that more profit can be gained, and more control over an elite market, can be applied. Developers are the tip of the spear for OS vendors. There is a great deal of control over this end of things, for no reason other than to make it possible to have a separated distinction between developer and user. I believe this distinction is having a net deleterious effect on computing ..

nosecrets 8y ago

There was a very expensive compiler for the Apple ][. Apple Pascal, based on UCSD Pascal, had its own operating system, released in 1979. I ran into it in 1983 in my very first computer class (8th grade). https://apple2history.org/history/ah17/#01 https://apple2history.org/history/ah17/#01

walshemj 8y ago
I recall supporting our companies scientific software on apple ]['s that used UCSD - don't suppose any on remembers "Tec Pack" I had to recompile the programs to hard code the security dongles key into it.

fit2rule 8y ago

Yes, those things did come with the means onboard by which software could be created. It wasn't a compiler, if you want to be pedantic about it, but no computer shipped in the 80's ever survived unless it had the means onboard to support development of software for it. BASIC was a very effective means by which to write software in those days... We do not have that capability with the iDevices. Nor do we really have it with workstation devices (except of course Linux). Manufacturers don't consider it important to breed a generation of users who can be developers with little more than the initial shipment of software - instead the base has been split, such that more profit can be gained, and more control over an elite market, can be applied. Developers are the tip of the spear for OS vendors. There is a great deal of control over this end of things, for no reason other than to make it possible to have a separated distinction between developer and user. I believe this distinction is having a net deleterious effect on computing ..